HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10909 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In light of the proposed order, notice to respondent No. 4 is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder of the land situated at Gata No. 84 Village - Golapur, Pargna & Tehsil - Patti, District - Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the petitioner had moved an application U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for demarcation of the boundary of the aforesaid land before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh i.e. respondent No. 2 who had called for a report of the revenue officials and after making survey and fixing points, an order dated 27.10.2018 was passed allowing the application of the petitioner and confirming the report of the revenue authorities. 4. It has been submitted that respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2018 had moved an application for restoration before respondent No. 2 which was dismissed on 20.06.2024. The respondent No. 4 had thereafter filed an application for review against the order dated 27.10.2018 and 20.06.2024 which is pending consideration. Despite the pendency of the review application, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the orders dated 27.10.2018 as well as 20.06.2024 and that appeal Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Mohd. Ibrar .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner (Admin.), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj And Others .....Respondent(s) has been allowed by means of order dated 30.10.2025. 5. While allowing the appeal, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has returned a finding that the application U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 preferred by the petitioner, he had not made proper parties including the persons whose land was contiguous to the land of the petitioner situated at Gata No. 84. He has stated that unless and until all the tenure holders having land contiguous to the land of the petitioner are parties and no proper adjudication application can take place U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and accordingly allowed the application remanding the matter back for determination afresh before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate i.e. respondent No. 2. It was further observed that petitioner would make all the tenure holders having land contiguous to his land as parties and therefore a fresh adjudication would take place. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that once the review application itself was pending before respondent No. 2, the appeal itself was not maintainable and therefore prayed for allowing of the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the aspect pertaining to not making proper parties is evident from the record itself and cannot be disputed even by the petitioner. He further submits that there is no provision for review of the order passed U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and accordingly the same is not maintainable and even otherwise respondent No. 4 himself had filed an appeal and in any view of the matter the appellate order would supersede any application for review preferred by the same party before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 8. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioner also does not dispute the fact that in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the matter will have to be determined afresh by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and his application would be considered after the petitioner makes necessary amendments in array of parties as directed by the appellate court. WRIC No. 10909 of 2025 2 9. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 30.10.2025. The application of the petitioner U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is directed to be considered afresh by respondent No. 2 and the petitioner is further directed to make necessary amendments in his application with regard to the parties as directed by the appellate court within two weeks, thereafter the respondent No. 2 shall proceed to consider and decide the application expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 10. It is further observed that the review application itself has been rendered infructuous firstly in light of the order dated 30.10.2025 where the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 himself has been allowed and also from the fact that this Court has also affirmed the order dated 30.10.2025 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration before respondent No. 2. Even otherwise, this Court finds that no purpose will be served by pursuing review application firstly it being not maintainable and secondly the contention of respondent No. 4 itself has been upheld by the appellate court. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the matter is remitted to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to decide in terms of directions issued hereinabove. The writ petition is allowed. It is further provided that in case petitioner prefers an application for interim order after making necessary amendments in the application U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the same shall be considered by respondent No. 2 with expedition, say, within a period of two weeks in accordance with law and in case there is no legal impediment, the petitioner shall be at liberty to press his application for ad interim relief if the case is so made out. November 27, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 10909 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench